How do you folks know that the Linux was modified? Linux embedded may be being used as it was distributed. The propritary software may be the reader they wrote. I see alot of assumtions being made in this thread, and not alot of facts. You are perfectly welcome to run software on Linux and not release the code to that software. It is not a component or modification of the Linux OS.

I looked at the kernel image included in the 538 update - it has been modified to include drivers for the e-ink controller. These are statically linked into the kernel, so definitely count as modifications for the purposes of the GPL.

Someone else previously posted saying that the boordr application also included GPL code (meaning Bookeen themselves would be violating), but I haven't checked that myself...

In a court case for copyright infringement (as with that idiot woman in the US whose name escapes me), damages are generally awarded based on the commercial value of the goods being pirated. The commercial value here would seem to be zero.

Rather than actuall damages you can ask for Statutory damages... from $750 to $30,000 per incident. If the copyright holder can prove that the infrigment was done willfully and for profit than the award can be increased to not more than $150,000.
BOb

Yes, you're free to modify and run whatever GPL code you want as long as you don't distribute it.

I agree, that's how I read it too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by igorsk

Once you do, you're required to provide end users with the exact source code you used or with instructions on how to reproduce your binaries.

I don't see anything about releasing instructions on how to reproduce the binaries in there. Can you point to where in the GPL it says that. Also, what version are you looking at. Most of Linux is under GPLv2 I believe.

That all said...

How do you know that Bookeen modified and distributed that modified GPLed software?

Writting an app that runs on Linux and releasing it in no way requires that source code to be licensed under GPL also.

I looked at the kernel image included in the 538 update - it has been modified to include drivers for the e-ink controller. These are statically linked into the kernel, so definitely count as modifications for the purposes of the GPL.

Is this code in question released under the full GPL or the lesser GPL?

BOb

I just had a quick look through "strings boordr", and it looks like the binary includes mupdf and the mad mp3 decoder, both GPL-licensed. A number of other (non-GPL) open source libraries are used without credit - I haven't checked the license terms on those though.

Of course it's possible that Bookeen has paid for a commercial license for some of this software - maybe someone could ask the original authors.

I just had a quick look through "strings boordr", and it looks like the binary includes mupdf and the mad mp3 decoder, both GPL-licensed. A number of other (non-GPL) open source libraries are used without credit - I haven't checked the license terms on those though.

But, many libraries are released under the lessor GPL which means they can be accessed and linked into propritary software and that doesn't require the accessing software to be released under the GPL. I just checked in mupdf is the full GPL license. However, they do license for commercial sofware... so for all we know bookeen has a license.

I still haven't see incontrivertable proof that bookeen has modified and distributed GPL software. Has anyone just asked bookeen about it?

How do you know that Bookeen modified and distributed that modified GPLed software?

Why is the question interesting? Nobody has said anything about this and most people hera are aware how GPL works. Yes, it is possible to write programs in a Linux system that does not become GPL:ed as long as they are not statically linked to a GPL:ed program.

They are distributing GPLed software and they have to provide the source code.

But what's the point with something like the Gen3, where you need to create a firmware "package" to change anything? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that those package creation tools are a standard part of Linux, are they? They are almost certainly proprietory software.

Aren't you making a big assumption here, that any revision would be run on the same hardware? Certainly one of the possibilities of modifying the software could be with an eye towards running it on different hardware, where such firmware packaging may not be an issue. It might be possible to adapt it to prototype hardware, or run it in emulation on a desktop, for instance.

I still haven't see incontrivertable proof that bookeen has modified and distributed GPL software.

It does not matter whether the software was distributed. Bookeen have to provide full source code & toolchain (if not available with the operating system) along with the instruction how to re-create binaries.

If they have modified source code, they have to provide patches. If they did not, they have to provide links to exact versions of software they compiled and distributed. Full stop.

It does not matter whether the software was distributed. Bookeen have to provide full source code & toolchain (if not available with the operating system) along with the instruction how to re-create binaries.

If they have modified source code, they have to provide patches. If they did not, they have to provide links to exact versions of software they compiled and distributed. Full stop.

I'm rather sure that the Cybook is nothing but a Netronix EB-100. Having both now, I can compare them side-by-side. I also have the customs declaration of the Netronix and in it they specifically call the hardware by the internal part number "Bookeen ED060KB" as well as by the reference "EB0100". Looking at my Cybook Gen3, I note on the back a label with the part number "ED060KB2". Also, when I first attached my EB-100 to my WinPC on Tuesday, Windows declared itself to have found a new "Cybook" on the USB port I was using.

If this is the case, then I can only say that there's a good chance that Bookeen bought a developer's package from Netronix in order to gain access to the SDK and that part and parcel of that developer's package may well be a legal document requiring them to not freely distribute anything included in the SDK to others outside the firm - but I don't *KNOW* this to be true. However, I could always find out if I bought one of the developer's packages myself. I'm not flush with the money needed (They run about $3,000.) or I would do so. Until someone does do so, it's pretty much worthless to discuss as we don't have all the facts.

It does not matter whether the software was distributed. Bookeen have to provide full source code & toolchain (if not available with the operating system) along with the instruction how to re-create binaries.

I hate to belabor the fact, but you need to read the GPL again.

If you modify GPL licensed software and you only use it internally then there is NO requirement to distribute the modified software. So, it DOES matter if the software is distributed. Of course, shipping the device is the equivilent of distrbuting the software.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dottedmag

If they have modified source code, they have to provide patches.

I certainly agreed. However, the first word in the above is the MOST important one, "IF". So far everything on this thread is pure conjecture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dottedmag

If they did not, they have to provide links to exact versions of software they compiled and distributed. Full stop.

That is totally false. There is no requirement when USING a GPLed software that you have to provide links to that software. I belive you only have to include the license with your distributed software/device. Take a look at the GPL FAQ from GNU.org. I think this one applies here:

Until someone does do so, it's pretty much worthless to discuss as we don't have all the facts.

We have the facts: reverse-engineering gives traces of GPLed software. NOTHING ELSE MATTER: any NDAs, SDKs or any other crap. IT IS IRRELEVANT DID THEY SIGN ANYTHING. Bookeen distributes GPL-ed software without giving full instructions of how to build it.